Also known as: quasi-torts · quasi tort · quasi-tortious · quasi-delict
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hybrid cause of action that combines elements of tort and contract. Recovery is permitted for actual reliance expenditures and certain personal harms such as reputational injury, mental anguish, or physical detriment, but not for lost expectancy benefits.
Lena quit her nursing position and incurred moving costs after Carlos ended their engagement. In a jurisdiction that still recognizes the action, Lena recovers her out-of-pocket losses and proven emotional distress. She cannot recover the value of the lifetime financial support she expected from the marriage.
A waitress is injured when a bottle explodes in her hand. The court treats the seller's implied warranty as an obligation imposed by law rather than a voluntary agreement. Remedies sounding in both contract and tort therefore become available to the injured plaintiff.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A plaintiff may recover actual expenditures made in preparation for the marriage and proven harms such as reputational injury, mental anguish, or injury to health. Expectancy damages for lost social or financial position from the marriage itself are not allowed.
Supporting sources
The claim permits tort-style recovery for personal harms such as mental anguish and reputational injury in addition to reliance losses. Punitive damages may also be awarded upon a showing of malice.
Supporting sources
Most states have abolished heartbalm actions by statute. A minority of jurisdictions retain a limited version that treats the claim as a quasi-tort, quasi-contract action focused on verifiable reliance and personal harms.
Supporting sources
Punitive damages are available only if the defendant acted maliciously. Mere termination of the engagement after a change in financial circumstances does not by itself establish the required malice.
Supporting sources